Chennai Court February 1928 Judgments
A. Mahalinga Kudumban and ors. Vs. theetharappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad223; (1929)56MLJ387
Devadoss, J.1. These appeals arise out of Land Acquisition proceedings in the Tinnevelly District. Some inam lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award and referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 the claims of the contending parties. The inamdar alleges that he is entitled to the land and not to the melwaram only and claims the whole of the award. A number of tenants, alleging that they have occupancy right in the land - acquired, claim a portion of the amount awarded as compensation. The Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, held that the tenants had no occupancy right in the land and that the whole of the amount of compensation should be paid to the Inamdar. The tenants have preferred these appeals. The Office asked for directions from the Admission Court as regards the amount of Court-fee payable on the Memorandum of Appeal in each case and as regards the maintainability of the appeals in the High Court. One of us sitting in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Shanabhag Vs. Damodhara Shanabhag
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.113
Devadoss, J.This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Udipi declining to entertain an application under Section 73 of the Madras Village Courts Act I of 1889. The District Munsif is not right in declining to interfere with the order of the Panchayat Court on the ground that the petitioner could have made the application earlier stage as he had been aware of the ill-feeling existing between him and some of the pamhayatdurs. The District Mansif was not right in dismissing the application on that ground for under a. 73 it is open to a party deeming himself aggrieved by any decree or order of a Panchayat Court to move the District Munsif for setting aside such order on the ground of corruption, gross partiality or misconduct etc., of the Village Court within sixty days from the date of the decree. Even though a party was aware, at the time the trial went on, of the fact that the Panchayat Court waa grossly partial to him or corrupt, it is not incumbent upoa him t...
Tag this Judgment!A. Maralinga Kudumban and ors. Vs. theetharappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.345
1. These appeals arise out of Land Acquisition proceedings in the Tinnevelly District. Some inam lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award and referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 the claims of the contending parties. The inamdar alleges that he is entitled to the land and not to the melvaram only and claims the whole of the award. A number of tenants, alleging that they have occupancy right in the land acquired claimed a portion of the amount awarded as compensation. The Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, held that the tenants had no occupancy right in the land and that the whole of the amount of compensation should be paid to the inamdar. The tenants have preferred these appeals. The office asked for directions from the Admission Court as regards the amount of Court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal in each case and as regards the maintainability of the appeals in the High Court, One of us sitting in the Admission Cou...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Amirthalinga thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad986
Tiruvenkatachariar, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit has preferred this second appeal. He brought the suit for partition of certain immovable properties in which he claimed two-thirds share. Both the lower Courts have held that he is entitled only to one-third share and have given him a decree for partition to the extent of that share. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal in respect of the one-third share disallowed. The material facts of the case as found by both the Courts are as follows:The suit properties in which the plain-till claims two-thirds share belonged to an undivided Hindu family consisting of one Mari Ambalagaran and his two sons. Kuppuswami, the elder son (by his first wife) was a major, Paraman the other son (by his second wife) was a minor. The plaintiff's claim is based on the sale-deed Ex. A, dated 13th May 1914, purporting to be executed in his favour by Mari Ambalagaran and Kuppuswami, the former executing the sale-deed not only on his own behalf, but also...
Tag this Judgment!Thubati Venkatakrishnayya and anr. Vs. Vajrala China Veerareddi and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1144
1. These second appeals arise out of the same suit and the facts out of which the suit arose may be stated as follows:One Vajrala Chinna Rami Reddi died intestate and issueless about 25 years before suit. His properties devolved upon his widow Subbamma who died eight months before suit, After her death one Venkata Reddi, claiming to be the reversioner filed a suit (O.S. 10 of 1921) to recover the suit properties. There were five items of property. Defendants 1 and 10 to 15 were impleaded as lessees under Subbamma of items 1 to 3. Defendants 2 to 6 are the sons of defendant 1. Defendants 7 to 9 andl6 to 18 were their sub-lessees. Defendants 19 to 21 were alleged to be the alienees of items 4 and 5. Defendant 22 is the deity of a temple represented by a trustee in whose favour item 2 was alienated. On the plea of defendants 1 to 18 that the plaintiff was not the nearest reversioner but that there were four other near reversioners who sold the property to T. Veakatakrishnayya, he was adde...
Tag this Judgment!Amirthalinga thevan Vs. Arumuga Ambalagaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.553
Thiruvenkata Achariar, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit has preferred this second appeal. He brought the suit for partition of certain immoveable properties in which he claimed two-thirds share. Both the lower Courts have held that he is entitled only to one-third share and have given him a decree for partition to the extent of that share. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal in respect of the one-third share disallowed. The material facts of the case as found by both the Courts are as follows:2. The suit properties in which the plaint-tiff claims two thirds share belonged to an undivided Hindu family consisting of one Mari Amabalagaran and his two sons. Kuppuswami, the elder son (by his first wife) was a major. Paraman the other son (by his second wife) was a minor. The plaintiff's claim is based on a sale-deed, Ex. A dated the 3th May, 1914, purporting to be executed in his favour by Mari Ambalagaran and Kuppuswami, the former executing the sale deed not only on his own behal...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Dikshidar and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ326
Phillips, J.1. One Pillayar Dikshitar and defendants 1 to 4, his sons, executed a mortgage deed for Rs. 7,000 in favour of one Venkatasubbier on 15th April, 1909. Again on 24th May, 1911, the said Pillayar Dikshitar and the 2nd defendant executed a mortgage for Rs. 1,500 in favour of the same person. Lands of two villages were mortgaged under these documents, i.e., Parameswaramangalam and Koothavakkam. There was a third mortgage on 6th August, 1912, in favour of the plaintiff's brother, Raghava Reddi. He filed a suit on his mortgage, obtained a decree and purchased Koothavakkam village. He is now dead and the plaintiff is the owner of the equity of redemption of Koothavakkam village. On 6th December, 1920, the plaintiff obtained a transfer of the first two mortgages and has now brought a suit to enforce them. In the deed of assignment the amount due on the two mortgages is said to have been Rs. 18,718, but the price paid by the plaintiff for the assignment was only Rs. 6,000. The Subor...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.M. Karuppan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Venkata Perumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad465
Phillips, J.1. I agree that this appeal must fail. A case almost exectly on all fours with the present case was decided by a Bench of this Court in Venkataramana Reddi v. Rangiah Chetti A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 249. Seeing that the question at issue arises under Section 89, T.P. Act, which has now been repealed by the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, the question is not likely to come up for decision except on vary rare occasions and it is, therefore, unnecessary to discuss the law at length. I agree with Sadasiva Ayyar, J., in his judgment in Venkataramana Reddi v. Rangiah Chetti A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 249, and am content to follow that decision.2. On the question of limitation also I agree with my learned brother. The appeal accordingly fails and must be dismissed with costs. The memorandum of objections is dismissed.Odgers, J.3. In this case the plaintiff appeals from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor wherein he decided that defendant 15 is entitled to priority with regard to item 16 in ...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.M. Karappan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Raja Kumara Venkata Perumal Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.841
Phillips, J.1. I agree that this appeal must fail. A case almost exactly on all fours with the present case was decided by a Bench of this Court in Pingali Venkataramana Reddi v. Kotigari Rangiah Chetti 70 Ind. Cas. 212 : 41 M.L.J. 399 : (1922) M.W.N. 15; A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 249 Seeing that the question at issue arises under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act, which has now been repealed by the Civil Procedure Code of 1903, the question is not likely to come up for decision except on very rare occasions and it is, therefore, unnecessary to discuss the law at length. I agree with Sadasiva Ayyar, J., in his judgment in Pingali Venkataramana Reddi v. Kotigori Rangiah Chetti 70 Ind. Cas. 212 : 1922 41 M.L.J. 399 : (1922) M.W.N. 15; A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 249 and am content to follow that decision.2. On the question of limitation also I agree with my learned brother. The appeal accordingly fails and must be dismissed with costs. The memorandum of objections is dismissed.Odgers, J.3. In this ...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusami Chettiar Vs. Kaliaperumal Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad480; 113Ind.Cas.550
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is presented in the following circumstances : The petitioner filed a Small' Cause suit against the respondent for a. sum of Rs. 332 said to be owing on account of dealings. The plaint was filed on 19th April 1922. On 16th November 1920, the respondent had presented an insolvency petition in the District Court. On 19th March 1921, he entered into a composition with certain creditors. On 20th December 1921, he was adjudged in-solvent. On 29th September 1922, the District Court accepted the composition and annulled the adjudication. The plaintiff's suit was obviously instituted while the insolvency proceedings were pending, and, therefore, under Section 25, Pro. Ins. Act, could not have been commenced without the leave of the Court.. No leave was obtained. The respondent, therefore, raised a preliminary objection' that the suit was not maintainable. The lower Court has upheld that objection and' dismissed the suit, and this civil revisions-petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »